Sententia ex Suetonii "Vita Divi Claudii"

[gerases]

Nec dubium est, quid post haec Augustus constituerit, et reliquerit eum nullo praeter auguralis sacerdotii honore impertitum ac ne heredem quidem nisi inter tertios ac paene extraneos e parte sexta nuncuparet, legato quoque non amplius quam octingentorum sestertiorum prosecutus.

The meaning is clear, but any idea why "nuncupo" is in the subjunctive here? Unless there's some hint of a purpose clause, which is tough for me to incorporate here.

[adrianus]

"and he would not have named him heir at all except [he did, but] among those third-removed and practically strangers [/barely related], [who were] due for a sixth part [of his estate]"
Situation contrary to fact, since he did include him.

[gerases]

Situation contrary to fact, since he did include him.

But then why not "nuncupavisset" (to observe the sequence of tenses)?

To complicate it a bit further, a note about that sentence says that instead of "e parte sexta", second Roman edition had "ne parte sexta".

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Claudius*.html

[adrianus]

Is it any wonder [primary tense] what Augustus resolved [perfect subjunctive completed action] after these things, and that he left him bestowed [perfect subjunctive completed action] of no honour other than that of augural priest, and would not have named him [contrary to fact, A&G §485g] his heir at all other than among those third-removed and practically strangers due [only] a sixth [of his estate], and even stipulated a legacy of no more than 800,000 sesterces.

nuncupavisset [pluperfect subjunctive—How does this observe the sequence of tenses after a primary tense?] = "and had not named him his heir at all other than among..."

I don't pretend I'm confident about this.
De hoc, non confidenter postulo.

[gerases]

The problem with contrary to the fact is that with imperfect subj it signifies
something contrary to now and the narration is about the past. So you can't
translate that as "wouldn't have" can you? I admit I was wrong about the sequence
of tenses. But what about the alternative reading?

[adrianus]

The problem with contrary to the fact is that with imperfect subj it signifies
something contrary to now and the narration is about the past. So you can't translate that as "wouldn't have" can you?

Not so. I believe you can. Consider this from A&G:
Minimè, ut opinor. Habe hoc e grammaticâ de A&G (§486g):

Quaero a te cur C. Cornelium non defenderem?
I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]

id est, "I ask you why should I not have defended..."

or "Is it any wonder...that he should not have named him his heir..."

But what about the alternative reading?

You mean with nuncupavisset? I gave the alternative reading above and it doesn't sound right to me, but this is all after the fact so I might be misleading myself.
Alteram lectionem jam supra dedi. Ea malè sonat, ut mihi videtur, at a posteriori rem cogito, quâ ratione difficile est praejudicium eximi.

[gerases]

Quaero a te cur C. Cornelium non defenderem?
I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]

I don't know the context of that sentence but it just looks as a direct question within oratio obliqua, not something contrary to the fact. I.e.,

I ask you why I was not defending Cornelius.

... or at least at can be construed that way. Even your translation there doesn't convey something contrary to the fact, does it? Though you are right, and I realized it later last night, that contrary-to-the-fact in the past is expressed in the same way as in the present within oratio obliqua. From Bennett 321:

Direct: sī hōc crēderēs, errārēs;
Indirect: dīcō (dīxī), sī hōc crēderēs, tē errātūrum esse;

You mean with nuncupavisset? I gave the alternative reading above and it doesn't sound right to me, but this is all after the fact so I might be misleading myself.

No, I was referring to a note I found regarding that sentence on the web site from which I'm reading Suetonius. The note said that in the second Roman edition it read as "ne parte sexta nuncuparet" instead of "e parte sexta nuncuparet". Which completely dumbfounded me because in that case it's a negative purpose clause.

Also, according to another note about that sentence, the first "et" in the sentence is in some editions "cum", which in my opinion is better than "et" in that case.

[adrianus]

...I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]...
I don't know the context of that sentence but it just looks as a direct question within oratio obliqua, not something contrary to the fact. I.e.,

I ask you why I was not defending Cornelius.

... or at least at can be construed that way. Even your translation there doesn't convey something contrary to the fact, does it?

That's not my translation; that's A&G's translation to illustrate something contrary to fact. They're right.
Non mihi sunt haec verba sed citatio est de A&G. Illorum auctorum verba rem adverùs facta illuminantia. Non erravit qui sic vertit.

"You say that I should not have defended X, as I did. I ask you why should I not have defended X?"

[adrianus]

No, I was referring to a note I found regarding that sentence on the web site from which I'm reading Suetonius. The note said that in the second Roman edition it read as "ne parte sexta nuncuparet" instead of "e parte sexta nuncuparet". Which completely dumbfounded me because in that case it's a negative purpose clause.

Also, according to another note about that sentence, the first "et" in the sentence is in some editions "cum", which in my opinion is better than "et" in that case.

nec dubium est ne [eum] heredem...ne parte sexta nuncuparet.
"And is it any wonder that he would have not named him as heir, nor [even] named him [with those] from out of the sixth part [typically given to those outside the family]."

[gerases]

Thank you much for your insight.

While we're on the subjunctive, can you explain to me its use here (ex eodem opere):

Nec eo minus contumeliis obnoxius vixit. Nam et si paulo serius ad praedictam cenae horam occurrisset, non nisi aegre et circuito demum triclinio recipiebatur, et quotiens post cibum addormisceret, quod ei fere accidebat, olearum aut palmularum ossibus incessebatur, interdum ferula flagrove velut per ludum excitabatur a copreis.

Under what use of subjunctive do occurrisset and addormisceret fall and why is addormiscere in the imperfect and not in the pluperfect like occurrisset?

[adrianus]

I am very happy if it that was useful to you and wasn't completely cockeyed.
Meo animo aliquantò facit gratiùs si te adjuvare potui et non decepi.

For instance, if he arrived [pluperfect subjunctive, completed action] even a little bit later than the time set for dinner, he would get seated [secondary tense] only with difficulty and after a whole tour of the dining room, and every time he was nodding off [imperfect subjunctive, incomplete action] after the meal, which used to happen to him often, he used to be attacked [secondary tense] with olive stones and date pits,—sometimes he would be woken [secondary tense] by the jesters, jokingly as it were, with a rod or whip.

[gerases]

Got the sequence of tenses, but why not just the corresponding indicative forms: occucurrerat and addormiscebat?

[adrianus]

Because they are in dependent clauses (begining "si...", "quotiens..."), not independent clauses.
Quod dependentibus in clausulis sunt ista verba, clausulis quae per "si" et "quotiens" incipiantur.

[gerases]

It might be but there's no indirect speech, result clause, purpose clause or anything else I see that would require verbs in the subjunctive in the dependent clauses. No?

[adrianus]

The quotiens clause seems to me a temporal clause. The si clause is a conditional clause.
Clausula per quotiens temporalis est, ut mihi videtur, per si conditionalis.

[gerases]

But temporal clauses only take the subjunctive when there's an expectation of something. In this case we only have the meaning close to "whenever", which is usually with at best indicative pluperfect.

Si doesn't take the subjunctive very often unless something is contrary to the fact or something like future less vivid.

What do you think?

[adrianus]

But temporal clauses only take the subjunctive when there's an expectation of something. In this case we only have the meaning close to "whenever", which is usually with at best indicative pluperfect.

Not so for "whenever. See A&G §542. Indeed, "quotiens" is close to ubi(-cumque), cum(-que) and quando(-cumque) in the sense of whenever. + "With all temporal particles the Subjunctive is often found depending on some other principle of construction." (A&G §542)

"Id ubi dixisset, hastam in finis eorum emittebat." (Livy, 1.32.13)

Persimile conjunctionibus quando(-cumque) et cum(-que) quae subjunctivum modum saepe requirunt.

Si doesn't take the subjunctive very often unless something is contrary to the fact...

I think we were there already, gerase.
Priùs ibi fuimus, gerase.

[gerases]

Looked at 542. Indeed very valuable info. Live and learn. Thanks!

[gerases]

Here's the way Bennett describes it and hence a partial source of my confusion -- because I didn't remember "a.":

To denote the repeated occurrence of an act, ut, ubi, simul atque, as often as, when following an historical tense, take the Pluperfect Indicative; as,—

ut quisque Verris animum offenderat, in lautumiās statim coniciēbātur, whenever anybody had offended Verres's feelings, he was forthwith put in the stone-quarry;

hostēs, ubi aliquōs ēgredientēs cōnspexerant, adoriēbantur, whenever the enemy had seen any men disembarking, they attacked them.

a. In Livy and succeeding historians the Imperfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive are used to denote this repeated occurrence of an act ('Indefinite Frequency'); as,—
id ubi dīxisset hastam mittēbat, whenever he had said that, he hurled a spear.

I think we were there already, gerase.

Hmm, I have trouble relating this with our previous discussion. What exactly are you referring to? But regardless, "si" here falls under the same rule.

[adrianus]

Hmm, I have trouble relating this with our previous discussion. What exactly are you referring to? But regardless, "si" here falls under the same rule.

Sorry, gerases. I was mixing up "ne heredem quidem...nuncuparet" with the later passage.
Me paenitet, gerases, priorem clausulam ("ne heredem...nuncuparet") cum noviore miscebam.

[gerases]

Flocci est, Adriane. Gratias tibi iterum.

[gerases]

I was just re-reading A&G on the sequence of tenses and stumbled across the example you gave at some point in our discussion, namely:

Quaero a te cur C. Cornelium non defenderem?
I ask you why I was not to defend Caius Cornelius? [Direct: cur non defenderem?]

To which I said:

I don't know the context of that sentence but it just looks as a direct question within oratio obliqua, not something contrary to the fact. I.e.,

I ask you why I was not defending Cornelius.

And you said:

That's not my translation; that's A&G's translation to illustrate something contrary to fact. They're right.

So, while reading the paragraph in A&G (485.g), which is entitled as:

The imperfect and Pluperfect in conditions contrary to the fact (paragraph 517) and in the Deliberative Subjunctive (paragraph 444) are not affected by the sequence of tenses.

Then the first example is given as an example of contrary to the fact and the second, the one you gave, demonstrates not something contrary to the fact, but a Deliberative Subjunctive, which is not the same.

Besides, I was saying that I couldn't understand how contrary to the fact impf. subj. could have been used with narration about the past (having forgotten that contrary to fact conditions are not subject to the sequence of tenses). The example you gave was from the right paragraph but about something else and not about the past but the present (quaero cur ...)

It what would have helped more if just said "contrary to the fact conditions are not subject to the sequence of tenses".

Just wanted to clear the air about it.

[adrianus]

You clear the air and untangle the webs we weave.
Tu nubes purificas extricasque telas textas.

[gerases]

This is interesting:

http://books.google.com/books?id=9yVR5Fac278C&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22nec+dubium+est,+quid%22&source=bl&ots=nWfNDi0OOz&sig=WU4ss46o47Q-XfsHOGLnGD0i1Co&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RtP_T7LiBJC0qAGe2J2gBw&sqi=2&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22nec%20dubium%20est%2C%20quid%22&f=false

The paragraph deals specifically with this sentence. The correct version of the sentence is:

Nec dubium est, quid post haec Augustus constituerit, ut relinqueret eum nullo praeter auguralis sacerdotii honore impertitum ac ne heredem quidem nisi inter tertios ac paene extraneos e parte sexta nuncuparet, legato quoque non amplius quam octingentorum sestertiorum prosecutus.

The mistake was probably made by a scribe.

[adrianus]

And yet the editor has not written what you have written but has written "ut reliquerit" (p.32), and dismisses "et reliquerit" out of hand, reading "[quid] reliquerit".

Non scripsit autem editrix ut tu sed "ut reliquerit". Porrò, cursìm ea dimittit "et reliquerit" quod "[quid] reliquerit" legit.

[gerases]

There are probably several ways to fix that sentence. The two that come to mind are:

1. Replace the "et" with "cum" and put all the following verbs in Perfect Subjunctive.
2. Replace the "et" with "ut" and put all the following verbs in Imperfect Subjunctive.

Whichever way there is, the following is clear:

1. The sentence needs to be fixed
2. "Nuncuparet" is not part of a contrary to the fact construction, but is dependent on either "cum" or "ut" or something similar governing the subjunctive.

[adrianus]

You seem to be reproducing Imber Ranae's thoughts above, gerases.
Sententias alius das, gerases, sine credentiâ, id videtur.

http://latindiscussion.com/forum/latin/ ... dii.14738/

What's clear is that there are differences of opinion.
Clarum mihi est sententias diversas exstare.

It's true that imperf. subj. sometimes makes a past time contrary-to-fact statement, but AFAIK only when there is repeated action involved or a state which would still be true in the present (though logically it must have preceded as well). The naming of an heir is a one time thing, I should think.

The potential, however, a person has to name someone as their heir, when they haven't already done so, lasts until the moment of death, as does the pleasure of continually rejecting the idea.
Semper est potentia ante mortem ad heredem nuncupandum et continuò constat voluptas heredis negandi.

But I can't trust my latin, so I can be pursuaded. At the same time, yes, it may be a mistake, but are we certain no such subtlety is intended?
At non fidam autem latinitati meae et exorari possum. Forsit mendum est. Estne certum interìm talem subtilitatem deesse?

My vis-a-vis in that discussion sees no problem with the sentence...

I didn't say that. It's a problem for me but I believe you can extricate sense from "et".
Id non dixi. Difficilis mihi est sententia per "et" at, ut credo, sensus justus extricetur.

[adrianus]

He would not even have named him as heir had he not named him as heir in the third degree? That seems tautological, and besides, the clear implication is that he named him as heir in the third degree in lieu of naming him as the expected principal heir, which to my mind completely vitiates the contrary-to-fact hypothesis. I just can't see any way to make a contrary-to-fact interpretation work....But more importantly, this doesn't even address the larger question of how either reliquerit or nuncuparet is connected with the rest of the sentence. Are they part of an indirect question like constituerit is? If so, how could they possibly be translated as such? If not, what is reliquerit even doing?

It is not a tautology because the implication is that,—if you read this way,—though Augustus was inclined not to name him so, he WAS named ABOVE those of the sixth part, though still limited to a bequest of only 800,000 sesterces.
Non est tautologia quod non inter sed supra eos e parte sexta inclusus est, etiamsi diminuto legato prosecutus.

Is it any wonder after these things what Augustus resolved and why [=quid] he left him bestowed of no honour besides that of sacerdotal priest, and would not have named [/was not going to name] him his heir at all outside those twice-removed and practically strangers who drew from the sixth part [except that he did name him heir above those from the sixth part ]—and even then his legacy was no more than 800,000 sesterces.

I don't claim that this is the case, just that it could be the case for the given version of the passage,—a possible reading,—undermining the claim that the sense is clear when key words remain controversial.
Non clamo id verum esse sed sic fieri posse seu id potentiam habere verum esse, vocabulis loci datis. Lectio possibilis est quae etiam, significationis vocabulorum principalium non captis, subvertit notionem sensûs manifesti.

[gerases]

The reason why I did not mention Imber was not because I wanted to conceal it, but because:

1. I did not want to appeal to authority.
2. I did not want creat an impression that I was assembling an army, which would not be fair.

Imber has a link to this conversation and from that point, my conscience is clear.

The problem with contrary to the fact is:

1. The sequence of tenses, since it would have to be nuncupavisset as I observed at the beginning and which Imber confirmed as well - LATER!

2. Nisi feels like a limiter to ne ... quidem, instead of being part of a protasis. But this thought is expressed in the other thread and I'm practically quoting it here.

3. This is possibly not a strong argument, but in unreal conditions, there is usually a verb in both the protasis and apodosis. Here we have something like "he would not have named him an heir unless in the third degree". It was an unreal condition, it would have to imply (in the unfolded form of an unreal condition): "he would not have named him an heir if he had not named him an heir in the third degree". Which sounds a bit off, wouldn't you say?

Consider this: "I wouldn't have taken any place, unless I had trained." AND "I wouldn't have taken even the third place unless I won the fourth". The first is a normal unreal condition, the second has a logical problem identical to the problem we are discussing. What the second is really trying to say is "I didn't even take the third place, I only took the fourth.", which is not a condition at all and is instead a case of ne ... quidem ... nisi. As in "ne ullum quidem locum adeptus sum nisi quartum."

I think its obvious that the flow is ne ... quidem ... nisi.


Ignosce mihi si quae vitia scribendi inveneris, nam iPodo meo usus sum cujus claviatura non tam commoda est quam illa computatri mei.

[adrianus]

I am reluctant to rewrite the sentence because I don't have confidence in my fluency, so I must make sense of what I see. Maybe I will agree in the future that your rewriting is necessary.
Ab sententiâ convertendâ abhorreo qui latinè non facundè loquar, dein de rebus prae manibus dependam. Forsit futuro tibi concurram ut ista sententia convertenda sit.